DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/469,148 filed on 09/25/2025, in which claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
Claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are currently amended, claim(s) 5-8 has/have been cancelled, and claim(s) 11-18 has/have been added as a new claim depending on base claim 1 by a preliminary amendment filed on 09/25/2025. Accordingly, claim(s) 1-4 & 9-18 is/are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for (1) foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202310355586.2, filed on 04/04/2023, and (2) this application to be a 371 of PCT/CN2023/116083, filed on 08/31/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS(s)) submitted on 09/25/2025, 11/03/2025 & 03/20/2026 has/have been received and considered.
However, Examiner noted that some of the submitted IDS(s) references is/are a duplicate of each other, and have been considered accordingly.
The information disclosure statement filed 09/25/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The abstract is not within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
The abstract is using phrases which can be implied, such as, “Provided”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 2-4 & 17 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “after the verifying data of the through flight information to obtain valid through flight information” in line(s) 1-2. It should be “after the verifying the data of the through flight information to obtain the valid through flight information”.
Claim 3 recites “storing the through flight into a through flight information base” in line(s) 2-3. It should be “storing the through flight into the through flight information base”.
Claim 4 recites “generating a query result” in line(s) 2. It should be “generating the query result”.
Claim 17 recites “an earliest travel date, a preferred airline, the specification at least comprises” in line(s) 2-3. It should be “an earliest travel date, and a preferred airline, and the specification at least comprises”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim1. A method for constructing a through flight, comprising:
acquiring through flight information issued by each airline, wherein the through flight information comprises through flight route information and a through flight code sharing relation [pre-solution activity (data gathering) using generic sensors];
verifying data of the through flight information to obtain valid through flight information [mental process/step];
searching out, based on the valid through flight information, direct flight information from a pre-constructed direct flight information base [mental process/step]; and
constructing the through flight based on the direct flight information, and storing the through flight into a through flight information base [mental process/step].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a method that is including at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation of verifying data of the through flight information to obtain valid through flight information; searching out, based on the valid through flight information, direct flight information from a pre-constructed direct flight information base; and constructing the through flight based on the direct flight information, and storing the through flight into a through flight information base.
This/These limitation(s), as drafted, is/are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “one or more processors and/or storage apparatus storing one or more programs”, i.e., . That is, other than reciting “processor(s)” & “storage apparatus/ program” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processor(s)” & “storage apparatus/ program” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple judgement, i.e. selection. The mere nominal recitation of by a controller does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) or step(s) of acquiring through flight information issued by each airline, wherein the through flight information comprises through flight route information and a through flight code sharing relation.
The acquiring step(s) is/are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering through flight information), and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
The “one or more processors” and/or “storage apparatus storing one or more programs” merely describe(s) how to generally and merely automates the verifying, searching and constructing step(s), therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The “processor(s)” & “storage apparatus/ program” system is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the verifying, searching and constructing step(s).
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the acquiring step(s) and the processor(s) & storage apparatus/ program element(s) were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere acquiring of data over a network, i.e., online database is/are a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
The “processor(s) & storage apparatus/ program” merely describes how to generally and merely automates the verifying, searching and constructing step(s), therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The processor is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the verifying, searching and constructing step(s).
Accordingly, a conclusion that the acquiring step(s) and the processor(s) & storage apparatus/program element(s) is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent electronic device, and storage medium of claims 9, and 10, respectively, recite(s) similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 9 & 10 is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Dependent claims 2-4 & 11-18 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2-4 & 11-18 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1.
Thus, claims 1-4 & 9-18 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – No
Claim(s) 10 is/are directed to a computer storage medium, i.e. “Computer Readable Medium”. The claim does not recite, and the specification does not define, that the computer readable medium is limited to non-transitory embodiments. See Specification ¶70
A claim encompassing both transitory and non-transitory embodiments, such as applicant’s claimed computer readable medium, does not fall within one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A transitory, propagating signal like Nuitjen’s is not a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ … Thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.”).
The claim may be amended to avoid a rejection under 35 USC §101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would not raise the issue of new matter because the specification supports a claim drawn to at least one non-transitory embodiment.
Therefore, claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 USC §101 as being directed toward ineligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 USC §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC §102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 & 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 USC §102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by PG Pub./ Patent No. CN111506818(A) by Li et al. (hereinafter “Li”), which is found in the IDS submitted on 11/03/2025
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Li’s reference a copy of which is attached to this Office Action as also indicated in the 892 form.
As per claim 1, Li discloses a for constructing a through flight (Li, in at least ¶¶56 & 70, discloses a visual airline condition management front-end, supporting each airline to create data resources for its market and use these data resources to manage and define connecting flight conditions, and a flight search system supports displaying customized transit and connecting flight conditions, wherein upon receiving a user query request to obtain which airline’s query interface the user entered through, so that connecting flight conditions matching that airline can be retrieved as the basis for the query), comprising:
acquiring through flight information issued by each airline, wherein the through flight information comprises through flight route information and a through flight code sharing relation (Li, in at least ¶¶56-58, 70 & 79-87, discloses that each airline configures connecting flight conditions to match its specific needs, wherein it first obtain the configuration data for transit and connecting flights, which includes transit city information, route information, or special service information. Li further discloses receiving custom market data and market-based transit condition data generated by the airline business analysis system, wherein upon receiving a user query request to obtain which airline’s query interface the user entered through, so that connecting flight conditions matching that airline are retrieved as the basis for the query. Li’s system receives custom markets set by airlines through the management front-end, as well as custom transit and connecting flight conditions, wherein the legality of the custom market codes, the administrative regions included in the custom market, and the transit and connecting flight conditions is/are verified. Li also discloses the flight search engine first sends a query request to the flight condition data cluster to find direct flights that meet the user's query conditions, including regular flights of domestic airlines, regular flights of foreign airlines, and code-share flights);
verifying data of the through flight information to obtain valid through flight information (Li, in at least ¶¶56, 70 & 79-87, discloses verification component is used to receive custom market data and market-based transit condition data generated by the airline business analysis system, and to perform data format validity verification, wherein the system receives custom markets set by airlines through the management front-end, as well as custom transit and connecting flight conditions; it verifies the legality of the custom market codes, the administrative regions included in the custom market, and the transit and connecting flight conditions);
searching out, based on the valid through flight information, direct flight information from a pre-constructed direct flight information base (Li, in at least ¶¶44, 56, 70 & 79-87, discloses a first query subunit is used to query direct flights based on the parsed information to obtain direct flight information); and
constructing the through flight based on the direct flight information base, and storing the through flight into a through flight information base (Li, in at least ¶¶22, 41, 67, 79-87 & 91, discloses the flight search engine first sends a query request to the flight condition data cluster to find direct flights that meet the user's query conditions, including regular flights of domestic airlines, regular flights of foreign airlines, and code-share flights, wherein Li’s invention supports the creation of new custom markets, i.e., set up a custom market code. Li further discloses transit conditions are stored in a pre-created condition database. Li also discloses receiving custom markets set by airlines through the management front-end, as well as custom transit and connecting flight conditions; verifying the legality of the custom market codes, wherein the administrative regions included in the custom market and the transit and connecting flight conditions, processes and stores the conditions, and decomposing and storing the conditions to facilitate quick application of the conditions during queries. Li also discloses decomposes the conditions into a pattern that is easy to use and writes it into the flight condition database).
As per claim 2, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein after the verifying data of the through flight information to obtain valid through flight information, the method further comprises:
storing the valid through flight information into a database (Li, in at least ¶¶22, 41, 67 & 79-87, discloses transit conditions are stored in a pre-created condition database. Li further discloses receiving custom markets set by airlines through the management front-end, as well as custom transit and connecting flight conditions; verifying the legality of the custom market codes, wherein the administrative regions included in the custom market and the transit and connecting flight conditions, processes and stores the conditions, wherein decomposing and storing the conditions to facilitate quick application of the conditions during queries).
As per claim 3, Li discloses the method of claim 2, accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein after the constructing the through flight based on the direct flight information, and storing the through flight into a through flight information base, the method further comprises:
verifying whether a flight query request conforms to a specification under the condition that the flight query request sent by a user is received;
searching out flight information based on the flight query request and generating a query result under the condition that the flight query request conforms to the specification; and
ending a flight query flow under the condition that the flight query request does not conform to the specification (Li, in at least ¶¶22-27 & 86, discloses the step of querying flight information based on the connecting flight conditions to obtain flight information matching the flight information query request includes: the flight information query request is parsed to obtain the parsed information. Based on the parsed information, a query is performed to obtain direct flight information. Based on the aforementioned connecting flight conditions, the connecting flight information is queried to obtain the connecting flight information. Based on the parsed information, the direct flight information and the connecting flight information are sorted to obtain flight information that matches the flight information query request. Li further discloses, after receiving a flight query request, the flight query engine verifies whether the incoming request conforms to the specifications. If it does, the query process is triggered; otherwise, the process is terminated).
As per claim 4, Li discloses the method of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein after the searching out flight information based on the flight query request and generating a query result, the method further comprises:
sorting the query result according to a preset rule to obtain a sorted query result; and
sending the sorted query result to the user (Li, in at least ¶¶22-27, 46, 75 & 89, discloses direct flight information and the connecting flight information are sorted to obtain flight information that matches the flight information query request, wherein the flight search engine first sorts the direct and connecting flight results, then assembles them into a formatted message and returns it to the airline's official website or app, which parses the message and finally displays the results to the user).
As per claim 5, Cancelled
As per claim 6, Cancelled
As per claim 7, Cancelled
As per claim 8, Cancelled
As per claim 9, the claim is directed towards an electronic device that recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. The cited portions of Li used in the rejection of claim 1 disclosed the same electronic device limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 10, the claim is directed towards a computer storage medium that recites similar limitations performed by the method of claim 1. The cited portions of Li used in the rejection of claim 1 disclosed the same computer storage medium limitations of claim 10. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
As per claim 11, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein the through flight route information at least comprises carrier flight information of each segment of the through flight (Li, in at least ¶¶98, 64 & 122, discloses operating airlines must include at least one segment operated by this airline, wherein, based on the obtained configuration data, transit conditions are generated, which are matched with the data resources or market segments of each airline).
As per claim 12, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein the through flight code sharing relation allows a flight of a carrier airline to use its own flight number or flight numbers of other airlines for sale (Li, in at least ¶¶91 &125, discloses setting up a custom market code, wherein by setting transit and connecting flight conditions based on a customized market, airlines can accurately launch personalized connecting flight products that differentiate them from other airlines).
As per claim 13, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein the through flight refers to a mode in which a virtual flight number is used as a market flight, and different segments of the through flight are carried by a plurality of different airlines by setting up the through flight code sharing relation, so as to achieve through flight intermodal transportation (Li, in at least ¶¶64, 79-81, discloses transit conditions are generated based on the obtained configuration data, which are matched with the market segments of each airline or data resources. Li further discloses verification component is used to receive custom market data and market based transit condition data generated by the airline business analysis system, and to perform data format validity verification, wherein airlines use this front-end to simulate the effects of custom market information generated by the business analysis system and transfer connection condition data based on the custom market, and make corrections based on the simulation results).
As per claim 14, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein the verifying data of the through flight information to obtain valid through flight information comprises:
verifying at least airline information and transit airport information involved in the through flight route information and the through flight code sharing relation to obtain the valid through flight information (Li, in at least ¶¶56, 70 & 79-88, discloses verification component is used to receive custom market data and market-based transit condition data generated by the airline business analysis system, and to perform data format validity verification, wherein the system receives custom markets set by airlines through the management front-end, as well as custom transit and connecting flight conditions; it verifies the legality of the custom market codes, the administrative regions included in the custom market, and the transit and connecting flight conditions. Li further discloses verifying the direct flight combinations based on the connecting flight generation conditions and generating connecting flights that meet the airline's requirements).
As per claim 15, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein the searching out, based on the valid through flight information, direct flight information from a pre-constructed direct flight information base comprises:
searching out, based on the through flight code sharing relation of the valid through flight information, direct flight information corresponding to different flight sections of the through flight from the pre-constructed direct flight information base (Li, in at least ¶¶44, 56, 70 & 79-87, discloses a first query subunit is used to query direct flights based on the parsed information to obtain direct flight information, wherein the verification component is used to receive custom market data and market-based transit condition data generated by the airline business analysis system, and to perform data format validity verification, wherein the system receives custom markets set by airlines through the management front-end, as well as custom transit and connecting flight conditions; it verifies the legality of the custom market codes, the administrative regions included in the custom market, and the transit and connecting flight conditions).
As per claim 16, Li discloses the method of claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein before the constructing the through flight based on the direct flight information, the method further comprises:
verifying at least an intersection of dates and connection time between a plurality of flights constituting the through flight according to the direct flight information (Li, in at least ¶¶44, 56, 70, 79-87 & 94-97, discloses search for direct flights, wherein a first query subunit is used to query direct flights based on the parsed information to obtain direct flight information. Li further discloses flight search triggered, wherein main fields in the request include: origin, destination, earliest travel date, preferred airline, etc. Li also discloses setting the [Origin Market], [Destination Market], [Transit Airport], [Operating Airline], [Minimum Connection Time], and [Maximum Connection Time], wherein the maximum connection time cannot exceed 24 hours, wherein query and modify transit connecting flight conditions based on the custom market, set information such as transit airport, airline, and transit connection time).
As per claim 17, Li discloses the method of claim 3, accordingly, the rejection of claim 3 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein field information in the flight query request at least comprises information of an origin, a destination, an earliest travel date, a preferred airline, the specification at least comprises a format specification and an authority specification (Li, in at least ¶¶16, 35, 58, 62, 79, 84-86, 94 & 133, discloses passengers submit flight search requests, wherein main fields in the request include: origin, destination, earliest travel date, preferred airline, etc. Li further discloses data format of the initial data is validated to obtain the configuration data for the transit connection conditions, wherein verification subunit is used to verify the data format of the initial data to obtain the configuration data for the transit conditions. Li also discloses configuration templates are created for airlines to choose from to provide relevant reference information on the format and content of configuration data, allowing airlines to select specific templates to generate or input configuration data, wherein the configuration template is displayed on the front end of the transit condition configuration. Li also discloses airline users log in to the connecting flight conditions management front-end using their authorized accounts, modify custom market information according to the airline's business needs, modify the administrative region information included in the custom market, and make the custom market effective; query and modify transit connecting flight conditions based on the custom market, set information such as transit airport, airline, and transit connection time; simulate conditions; export and make the conditions effective).
As per claim 18, Li discloses the method of claim 4, accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 above is incorporated. Li further discloses wherein the sorting the query result according to a preset rule to obtain a sorted query result comprises:
sorting the query result in the order of direct flight, through flight, and connecting flight, to obtain the sorted query result (Li, in at least ¶¶22-27, 46, 75, 89, 124 & 144, discloses direct flight information and the connecting flight information are sorted to obtain flight information that matches the flight information query request, wherein the sorting subunit is used to sort the direct flight information and the connecting flight information according to the parsed information to obtain flight information that matches the flight information query request. Li further discloses the flight search engine first sorts the direct and connecting flight results, then assembles them into a formatted message and returns it to the airline's official website or app, which parses the message and finally displays the results to the user, wherein the generated connecting flights are filtered according to the user's request criteria, sorted in the display order, and then returned to the airline's official website in a formatted message for presentation to the user, i.e., based on user's requirement, e.g., transit time and number of connecting flights).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See PTO-892 form(s).
Chen et al. (CN-113408944-A) discloses transfer flight pushing method that is screening out an alternative transfer flight line with a waypoint connection feature and a moment connection feature from all transfer flight lines according to transport capacity data of a target object, and a target transfer route of which the transfer data meets a transfer condition and the travel data meets a travel condition from all the alternative transfer routes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661
Prosecution Insights